Corsi openly admits his "goal is to defeat Obama," which seems to mean it should be read as a polemic, but Corsi calls his book "investigative" and denies that he set out to write "a political book." And his editor — Mary Matalin — calls it "a piece of scholarship."

Though books are generally viewed as loftier than journalism, NYT journalists Rutenberg and Bosman look down on books like this. It seems especially galling to them that books gain prominence via the NYT bestseller list (or as they say in the NYT "best-seller list"):

[B]ooks like “Unfit for Command,” which remained for some 12 weeks on the Times best-seller list, and, now, “The Obama Nation,” have become an effective and favored delivery system for political attacks.

Ha ha. Books are a "delivery system for attacks." The pen is mightier than the sword, and the book — look out! — is a veritable missile.

There have been anti-Clinton (both Bill and Hillary) and anti-Bush books too numerous to name. The sensational findings in these books, true or dubious, can quickly come to dominate the larger political discussion in the news media, especially on cable television and the less readily detectible confines of talk radio and partisan Web sites.

Fact-checking the books can require extensive labor and time from independent journalists, whose work often trails behind the media echo chamber.

Imagine! A book is able to get out in front of the usually nimble "delivery system" of the newspaper. And isn't it annoying that book authors get into the media and say things that require fact-checking? Who are these people? Who let them in? How dare they impose extensive labor on journalists!

This is a long set-up for showing us the results of the imposed fact-checking task that Rutenberg and Bosman apparently find so irksome. Let's have it:

... Mr. Corsi writes that Mr. Obama had “yet to answer” whether he “stopped using marijuana and cocaine completely in college, or whether his drug usage extended to his law school days or beyond.” “How about in the U.S. Senate?” Mr. Corsi asks.

But Mr. Obama, who admitted to occasional marijuana and cocaine use in his high school and early college years, wrote in his memoir that he had “stopped getting high” when he moved to New York in the early 1980s. And in 2003 The State Journal-Register of Springfield, Ill., quoted him responding to a question of his drug use by saying, “I haven’t done anything since I was 20 years old.”

In an interview, Mr. Corsi said “self-reporting, by people who have used drugs, as to when they stopped is inherently unreliable.”

So the statement that he hasn't answered is wrong, and Corsi's point should have been that Obama once used drugs, and we might want to be suspicious of the assertion that he stopped when he says he did. In saying this, Corsi reminds me of those Bush antagonists who speculate that he still drinks or that he is somehow dogged by the "dry drunk" effects of not drinking. Let's see if all the bloggers can be non-hypocritical. Treat Obama exactly the way you've been treating Bush on the substance-use issue.

In exploring Mr. Obama’s denials that he had been present for the more incendiary sermons of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Mr. Corsi cites a report on the conservative Web site NewsMax.com that Mr. Obama had attended a sermon on July 22, 2007, in which Mr. Wright blamed “the ‘white arrogance’ of America’s Caucasian majority for the world’s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks.”

Mr. Obama, however, was giving a speech in Florida that afternoon, and his campaign reported he had not attended Mr. Wright’s church that day.

William Kristol, a columnist for The New York Times, had cited the same report in a column, and issued a correction. “There is a dispute about the date, and Kristol chose to side with Obama,” Mr. Corsi said. “We can nitpick the date to death,” he added, saying his “fundamental point” was Mr. Obama’s close association with someone ascribing to “black liberation theology.”

So Corsi is faulted for citing a report that the campaign disputes and — perhaps, I can't tell — not also stating that the fact is in dispute. (I need to look at the book, which I don't have at hand.)

Mr. Corsi described most of the critiques of his book as “nitpicking,” like a contradiction of his claim that Mr. Obama had failed to dedicate his book “Dreams of My Father” to his family; Mr. Obama dedicated the book to several family members, in the introduction.

And that's the third and last of the picked nits Rutenberg and Bosman report. Are there more? Why isn't this article more of a fact-check by the NYT? It can't be enough that Media Matters is fact-checking the book. I'm inclined to assume the NYT didn't find any more mistakes or they'd have told us about them. That looks pretty good for Corsi. He is such a huge target. He destroyed Kerry and his book on Obama is #1!

Mr. Obama’s campaign has yet to weigh in heavily on Mr. Corsi’s accusations. It appears to face the classic decision between the risk of publicizing the book’s claims by addressing them and the risk of letting them sink into the public debate with no response.

I agree, smoking or not smoking is virtually a non-issue. But lying about it reveals one's character. It's not the smoking (or producing an outside family) that's the issue, it's the coverup. Watergate was a long time ago, yet politicians have learned little, it seems.

Althouse: "Now, they're weaseling about not wanting to draw attention to the book? That's a complete contradiction.... which has to make us think that they don't have answers to the charges."

Where is there anything in that article that states what Obama's campaign has decided or not decided to do wrt this book? Have you or any of your dear readers bothered to see if any of the points in the book have already been addressed at the stop the smears website? What in the article (or in your imagination) makes us think anything of the kind?

A better phrase would be: "I'm also too lazy to check anything for myself, so I'll just make a bunch of assumptions based on my preconceived notions." Yeah, that's much more accurate.

Scalia smoked a pipe through his confirmation hearings and he looked damned cool.

But pipes are rare enough to look professorial, and therefore adds to the distinguished air. Think Alistair Cooke or Nigel Bruce. Retro-cool.

You may know my father is an Oncologist. He is also a typical '60s Lefty.

He asked me if it what he had heard was true: that Obama was a smoker?

(Like Bleeper said, news media refuse to publish that photo of Obama smoking, so it's just hearsay for most people)

I told him that though he claims to have given it up to run for the Presidency, that he was a smoker since the age of 13 (as per his own admission).

My father is the most severe anti-smoker I've ever met in my life, both for professional and personal reasons. He told me he would disinherit me if I ever smoked. No worries. I never liked the stuff anyway.

Though he didn't say anything afterwards, I don't think he'll vote for Obama based on this one foible.

The author is not credible. It was his choice to be accurate or not about the easily verified items, and he chose to be inaccurate. Not a compelling argument to bother reading, much less believing, the book.

NOTE TO VICTORIA: Like you, I suspect Obama may be still smoking, but I do believe that picture is not recent. He looks MUCH younger. Do you have a date for it?

You might want to look into what Corsi's been doing between "Unfit" and "Obamanation", Ann. He's been hanging out in the fever swamps of the conspiracy theory crowd. His last book was a "Stop the North American Union" screed. He appeared regularly on Alex Jones, and on January 29, 2008 he endorsed the 9-11 Truthers, saying he was convinced by the "evidence" offered by Steven Jones. He's a thorough nutbar.

I've read the book. I think it's going to be a significant takedown for Obama, but not because of the few tiny facts that are mentioned here on Ann's blog.

Corsi documents extensive Muslim education in the first chapters, and goes into enormous length and clarity regarding Obama's father and the Kenyan politics into which Obama has inserted himself on the side of the Muslim minority.

There is a huge excavation of Obama's link to Ayers (VERY extensive, and quite chummy) and they are both linked extensively to Saul Alinsky.

The book is amazingly clean, clear, and credible.

If you have a Borders card, you can get one for 40% off. It's in most of the B & N and Borders bookstores, right in the front.

I think I got my copy for 17 dollars after the 40% discount.

Corsi WAS the co-author on the Swift Boat book. He admits as much on the first page of his introduction.

He spent six years doing the research for this book.

It's an amazingly extensive and careful book. Corsi has a Ph.D., and it shows. The book reads like a combination of very tight journalism, and very good scholarship.

He will probably make a few errors along the way, but he is trying to make a good case, and in doing so, he knows better than to be sloppy or to try to exaggerate facts.

The most interesting thing in the book to me was that Saul Alinsky (Obama's truest mentor, according to the book), argued that truth doesn't matter, and if logic and truth aren't on your side, just use ridicule and lampooning, and use the race card, or the class card, or anything that silences your opponent.

I wasn't aware that this was an actual tactic of the left. I just thought they were vicious nuts who didn't have the ability to reason. Apparently this is an actual time-honored tactic.

At any rate, this isn't just a history of Obama. It's a history of the Democratic party and its love affair with the left, which has resulted in Obama, and may yet result in the Obama Nation.

In saying this, Corsi reminds me of those Bush antagonists who speculate that he still drinks or that he is somehow dogged by the "dry drunk" effects of not drinking. Let's see if all the bloggers can be non-hypocritical. Treat Obama exactly the way you've been treating Bush on the substance-use issue.

Sure - so if Obama shows any "dry drunk" equivalent behaviors for drug users, I'd expect to see that kind of treatment. The Bush speculation is based on behaviors that make it appear he might be drinking. If Obama's got a drippy, red nose or is twitching like he's tweaking, then by all means, let's pile on.

Corsi openly admits his "goal is to defeat Obama," which seems to mean it should be read as a polemic, but Corsi calls his book "investigative" and denies that he set out to write "a political book." And his editor — Mary Matalin — calls it "a piece of scholarship."

That's a lot of equivocating -- "seems to mean"? Who cares what he calls it or her political operative editor says?

The first time I heard Obama speak in a radio ad I thought - that guy is winded - he sounded like he had just run a mile. That, and the way his voice sounds, made me think he was a smoker, long before I even knew that he was denying that he smokes. His gasping gave him away.

Slap on some more nicotine patches, Emperor, you are going to need them.

I’m pretty sure that Obama would be a disastrous president, but I’m pretty much against reading books like this on principle, for many of the reasons that Ann discussed. (I’m not saying that people shouldn’t write them or that they’re bad- I’m a big fan of the First Amendment- I just don’t think that one can gain much by reading them.) They’re too difficult to fact check in most cases, and there is almost no way that you can tell what is true and untrue. And, thanks to New York v. Sullivan, Obama himself can’t even take much action, other than flat out denials, against a writer who tells outright lies.

I think there's a difference between combating negative advertisements on TV which have a far wider audience and more visceral effect, and a book which doesn't really carry the same immediate impact.

This book and the others before and sure to follow, especially if Obama becomes President, just feed the deranged Obama haters, and serve as material for Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, and the other moonbats on the right.

Beth, Sure - so if Obama shows any "dry drunk" equivalent behaviors for drug users, I'd expect to see that kind of treatment. The Bush speculation is based on behaviors that make it appear he might be drinking. If Obama's got a drippy, red nose or is twitching like he's tweaking, then by all means, let's pile on.

So how does he stay so skinny after 18 months on the campaign trail, eating foods like French Toast? I learned in my Overeaters Anonymous meetings that coke is a great way to keep the weight off. By 47 even skinny young men begin to fill out. Why hasn't he?

I'm not saying he has, just that my speculation is every bit as valid as accusing Bush of being drunk every time he trips.

Corsi was actually only a co-author of "Unfit for Command." The first-listed author -- who had first-hand credibility as the Swift Boat commander who took over Kerry's boat -- was Houston attorney John O'Neill. My strong hunch is that O'Neill was responsible for the bulk of the book, including most of the discussion about the combat missions, with respect to which Corsi was comparatively unqualified to opine. Corsi probably wrote some of the comparatively weaker material near the end of the book, especially the chapter which argued that the Vietnamese Communists have a shrine to Kerry's anti-war activities in a war museum.

Personally I think Corsi's association with the SwiftVets ended up detracting from their efforts, and some of his personal history (which included some very ugly racially-charged statements) made it possible for Kerry surrogates to tar men like O'Neill whose military careers compared very favorably to Kerry's. Although I continue to be a fan of the SwiftVets, including John O'Neill, I do not consider myself a fan of Jerome Corsi. I haven't read his new book, and don't intend to, but he's been very imprecise and overbroad in some of the statements I've heard him make on talk radio shows in which he's been promoting this book/attacking Obama (e.g., significantly overstating the facts and drawing wild conclusions regarding Obama's attendance at a school in Indonesia that included Muslim instruction).

I'm with Beldar. Corsi is a crank, and he dragged down the rest of the Swift-boat people by association back in 2004. Since then, his name's been associated with a lot of crazy wingnut rantery, mostly of the "North American Union" black-helocopters variety.

The credibility of Dr. Corsi's monographs may be a wee bit lacking. From a blurb from his Black Gold Stranglehold:

n "Black Gold Stranglehold," Jerome Corsi and Craig Smith expose the fraudulent science that has made America so vulnerable: the belief that oil is a fossil fuel and that it is a finite resource. ... oil is not a product of fossils and prehistoric forests but rather the bio-product of a continuing biochemical reaction below the earth's surface that is brought to attainable depths by the centrifugal forces of the earth's rotation.

http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1769

Holy jeepers Dr. Science! What will those Middle Eastern oil sheiks do now?!?

So the statement that he hasn't answered is wrong, and Corsi's point should have been that Obama once used drugs, and we might want to be suspicious of the assertion that he stopped when he says he did. In saying this, Corsi reminds me of those Bush antagonists who speculate that he still drinks or that he is somehow dogged by the "dry drunk" effects of not drinking. Let's see if all the bloggers can be non-hypocritical. Treat Obama exactly the way you've been treating Bush on the substance-use issue.

Okay, let's see: Obama admits to using drugs in his youth and stopped about the time he was 20. With no evidence of continued drug use other than cigarettes, Corsi speculates that Obama is lying and may have been using drugs since he's been elected to the U.S. Senate. Because he hasn't specifically denied using drugs in the Senate.

George W. Bush had a documented drinking problem for several decades and stopped quite suddenly when he was 40, quite a trick if he was a heavy drinker. Some liberal speculated that this sudden change may have consequences on Bush's behavior.

And Ann wants to paint a near equivalence to these two scenarios?

Corsi, based on his past work, is not a credible "scholar." He is a conservative political activist. I doubt this book reaches even the bare minimum of "scholarship." It's a political hit piece, nothing more.

The swift boat campaign was devastating for Kerry because it was true. Kerry held himself out to be a war hero. Yet, not one single fellow officer would stand up for him. Instead they all said he was a phony. That was devastating to Kerry's character. This character flaw manifested itself in other places. For example, I recall Althouse pondering why Kerry didn't get in to Harvard and instead attended BU. He had everything else going for him considering he was an activist war hero and well connected Bostonian so it must have been because he didn't meet the minimum requirements. Althouse speculated that it was because Kerry had bad grades. Only later after the election did Kerry release his records and we found out that Althouse was right and that Kerry actually had worse grades than Bush at Yale.

Obama's biggest risk is not drugs. The risk to Obama is that he turns out not to be the post racial candidate he claims to be and he turns out to be the radical that he claims not to be. This is why his connection to Rev. Wright and Ayres are so damaging. One video of Obama cheering on one of Rev. Wright's hate America and white people speeches would end Obama's chances for all time. The thing is, that we all know Obama was in that church cheering on Rev. Wright during one of those speeches He even wrote about cheering on Rev. Wright in his first book. We all know that Obama was into black liberation theology. Why else would he join Wright’s church and not a more traditional black Christian Church. In Obama’s first book he recounts how Wright told him about their church being radical. Yet Obama joined it anyway and recounts how he had tears falling down his cheek during one of Wrights chants. Obama was in that church for 20 years listening to Wright. Obama called Wright his spiritual mentor. Lets get real, how could it be that Obama never knew what Wright was talking about in that Church. How likely is it that Obama wasn’t cheering on every drip of black liberation theology coming from the lips of Reverend Wright. Moreover, we know Wright himself knows that Obama is lying about it, which is what prompted Wright to refer to Obama as just another politician at the National Press Club. Imagine Wright's feelings to have Obama slam him after cheering on black liberation theology for 20 years.

All we need is the video. Is it out there? Maybe. If I had it I would charge $10 million for it and it would be worth every cent.

If I were republicans I would run commercials with Rev. Wright all day long during October in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virgina, etc.. and ask the question: Why did Obama stay in his church for 20 years listening to this anti-white and anti-American hate speech? There is no reasonable answer other than Obama stayed there because he didn’t object to it.

I don't see a near equivalence. I see a total equivalence. Both are completely and utterly irrelevant to my voting choices unless there is evidence that they are doing it now or had been doing it in the very recent past to where there is reason to doubt they have put it behind them.

Why am I "associating myself" with this book? I read a NYT article about it and I wanted to parse through that article and figure out what was going on. That makes a blog post. I haven't read the book and am not recommending it. I give an Amazon Associates link to make a percent for myself, because that's my standard practice (unless I forget) whenever I write about a book.

The McCain camp is on the right track right now. Job #1: Remind America - by continually using Obama himself - of how empty, inexperienced, morally-confused, judgment-challenged and ultimately unfit he is to be President.

Barack Obama is the least qualified major party candidate to ever run for President in the entire history of the United States.

Host with the Most: Why no caps for "ENTIRE" this time? Maybe try bold or italics, too. Or try emphasizing additional words like "least" or "ever." This kind of variety in your raving is bound to increase its effectiveness. Street corners are also good places for this kind of repetition.

"I read in a Lefty blog that the cigarette pic was Photoshopped. I wish someone here who was an expert could ascertain if it could've been."

That smoking picture is fake, Victoria. Here's the original. The fake version is cropped, flipped horizontally and blurred a bit to try and cover up the manipulation. It would be harder to spot as a definite fake if not for the relative ease of finding the original.

Not to worry, this one looks legit. I'm not saying that it is, but it's a bit more convincing. There aren't any verifiable pictures of him smoking that I can find, which isn't unusual for someone who's lived his life preparing to be a politician.

Obama is a very lyrical writer, but he never makes a stand on any point.

Corsi makes a clear stand, and then proceeds to give you the facts as he knows them. Every fact is documented in his extensive bibliography.

I think he's holding back quite a bit, and even manages to say some things that are in Obama's favor. For instance, he does say that Obama is probably not a Muslim (many people are trying to claim he is). Corsi argues that that's unlikely, since he's attended a sort of Christian church for 20 years, and besides he says that he isn't.

At least at that point he takes him at his word.

Corso said he realized that Obama was going to be a significant player already in 2002 because even then there was a terrific buzz about him. By the time of the August 2004 convention he was the only figure with any charisma on the left.

Along with Edwards, and to some extent, Hillary.

Edwards is out of the picture now.

Hillary, too.

I imagine that Corsi had extensive files on all three of them so that if one of them became the final candidate, he could give voters the information they need.

No one else seems to be able to provide it.

Corsi's facts in the Swift Boat book that were brought up here -- for instance that the Vietnamese honored Kerry for his work on their side, are the kinds of facts he martials here, too.

He may not be the most objective scholar (he admits that he has an axe to grind on p. 1).

However, he IS a scholar, and he is making a case.

He is not nearly as eloquent a writer as Obama (who is?), and yet, on the other hand, Corsi does manage to paint a real portrait of what he thinks that Obama thinks, which is better than Obama can do.

This and the raft of similar anti-Obama books coming out right about...NOW! are bound to be disappointing to most apart from the red-meat-eater partisans.

Especially in the case of Obama, whose resume is pretty light on "real" experience doing anything besides social work. There's not enough of a record to build a novel-length polemic on, so why even bother?

Corsi's effort reeks of the lamest, lowest form of partisan hackery. I hope the republicans aren't dumb enough to get caught up promoting the screed. One would think they can fashion a decent argument for their own and against Obama's election without falling back on this type of thing offered up by this writer.

They can't "swiftboat" Obama because he doesn't have anything to "swiftboat" him for; all attacks of that type will mirror back on the attackers.

Thus, the Democrats appear to be on the verge of picking a perfectly opaque cipher-candidate. On the other hand, that thinking may turn out to have been of the "fighting the last war" variety if the GOP is capable of finding novel ways to campaign and beat candidate Obama.

However, based on the GOP's recent record of governance and administration, I'm not getting my hopes up.

That's the only link I could find in a few minutes of searching. Not taking a stand one way or the other, but I am not convinced that only decomposition of organic matter is the only source of petroleum.

I'll agree that he's making a case, though it's likely to be a weak one. Calling him a scholar is a bit of a stretch.

Corsi makes a clear stand, and then proceeds to give you the facts as he knows them. Every fact is documented in his extensive bibliography.

His stand is clear: he's out to discredit Obama for political ends. I have not read the book, and probably won't, but excerpts I have read are light on "facts" and heavy on speculation that is "assumed" to be true and often treated as fact. That he has a bibliography and footnotes does not make his book scholarly or even true. That he uses as sources "newsmax.com" does not inspire confidence.

As for scholarly credentials, he has not held an academic post since 1982 and he's now a senior writer for WorldNetDaily, essentially a journalist.

Instead of being a scholar, his real job title should be professional conservative.

That he's clear about his agenda should cause readers to view this book with caution: in light of his goals, he should be held to a higher standard.

I heard Corsi interviewed on the Dennis Miller show. He made a big deal about Obama's early Muslim education, and it seemed really forced. Obama has been a Christian for a long time now, it's time to move on. (dot org)

He did talk a lot about Obama's close friends and associates: Ayers, Wright, and the like, including Frank Davis, a bona fide communist who was the principle mentor for Obama while building his career as an activist/organizer (or whatever his "job" was before he became a senator).

There are legitimate questions about Obama's judgment in liking these people -- not to mention how these far-far-leftists informed his own political tastes ... but from what I heard, Corsi muddies the waters by bringing up issues like the Muslim thing.

###

Palladian, that one looks pretty fake to me. No smoke, for example.

Where's Chip Ahoy? I'm seeing a wafting vortex of smoke, maybe an ashtray close at hand...

Most so-called scholars are professional leftists so I don't know how that disqualifies one "professional conservative" from entering the fray.

Corsi attacked Bush for neglecting the border in his book on the Minutemen, published in 2006.

He has not endorsed McCain, and has said that he won't.

He documents Obama's extensive experience with Marxist and Islamic groups, but he states quite clearly that we should take Obama at his word that he's a Christian. But then of course he goes on to ask what kind of Christian: either he's the most naive person at Trinity Church to not understand what was being preached, or else he's a liar.

If he's a liar on that issue, then what else is he lying about? Why won't he come clean?

The book asks questions about what Obama is likely to be thinking based on things he's said, people with whom he's been close for decades, and his roots in leftist activist circles.

I guess I'm the only person around here who's actually read it (it's only been out for two weeks) but since it's the bestseller at the NY Times Sunday list, I suppose I'm not alone.

I'm convinced that the "Obama is a closet Muslim" meme is something someone created in a lab somewhere to function as a dumbass-identifier in the manner that foaming mouths identify rabid dogs.

Does anyone in this tolerant USA really want to advance that paranoic-tinged and ultimately "hostile in a Shirley Jackson's 'The Lottery' way" argument as the basis for their opposition to a candidate? Especially one that's been attending a church -- even a Black Liberation Theology church -- for 20 years, and who hasn't had his Muslim dad around for most of his life?

Trying to make that argument does more damage to the arguer than to the candidate. Sorry, that's just the way it is. Seriously fever-swamp nonsense; move on please.

I guess I'm the only person around here who's actually read it (it's only been out for two weeks) but since it's the bestseller at the NY Times Sunday list, I suppose I'm not alone.

Along with works such Tori Spelling's autobiography, the sales total includes books ordered in bulk from bookstores. The author of "A Child Called It" reputedly manipulated his books up the NYT List via judicious bulk ordering. So who knows how many people have actually read it yet?

Really ?!?! Don't you have any real dirt? Really ?!?! Do you not have any substative and interesting issues to discuss... Let's see...hmmm... Globalization.... Global Warming... Clean, Sustainable, and Renewable Energy... Overpopulation... Pollution... National Debt... Torture being used by America in the war on terror... or vehicles that, after a century of technological and scientific advances, only get 30-35 MPG... or why did special interest groups lobby against electric vehicles in the 1970s... But NO !!! Let's talk about things that we can gossip about !!!

Smoking ?!?! Really ?!?! I didn't realize that tobacco was evil or had a direct effect upon a persons ability to lead. I guess we should have impeached all 20 of the past 43 presidents who have smoked cigars. How could we have been so foolish to have elected any of them President. Neither did I realize that the Native American ritual of smoking a peace pipe was inherently evil. Or the thousands of good old country boys that carry a pack of chew in their back pocket were also evil.

Drugs ?!?! Drugs have been used by cultures for spiritual rituals for thousands of years. They are still part of religious spiritual rituals being used to this very day (Mescaline, Peyote). If I'm not mistaken, Jesus turned several jugs of water into wine at a marraige party (wine is a 5,000 year old drug). Jesus went to a wedding. When the wine ran out, Jesus turned water into wine... I didn't know that the use of *DRUGS* was so inherently evil... I am going to flush all of my prescription drugs as soon as I finish my post! Join me, won't you in Prohibition !!!

Muslims ?!?! Really ?!?! I didn't know that *ALL* Muslim's were so inherently evil. Thanks for enlightening me. I will begin my campaign to persecute all Muslims as soon as I am done posting. Now that I have finally seen the light I can start working on helping to enlight others to the horrors of diversity and the frightening knowledge of other cultures!

Reverand Wright ?!?! I'm sorry, did he shock you? Is this the first time you've ever paid any real attention to what any black person has said? Or is this the first time you ever heard someone say something shocking...like... oh, I don't know...(a radio talk show shock jocks). Maybe your outraged that he didn't molest children like some Catholic Priest did while the Catholic Church covered it up or looked the other way! Maybe your afraid Obama will turn out to be just like Oprah because she went to the same church... AND We all know how *EVIL* she is.

- McCain graduated near the *BOTTOM* of his class at the us naval academy- Mccain voted *AGAINST* a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.- McCain *IGNORED* the NIE report on Iraq that presented information counter to the administrations assertions

- Obama graduated from Harvard with honors near the *TOP* of his class- Obama was the *FIRST* black president of the Harvard Law Review- Obama *TAUGHT* constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years- Obama *WARNED* that the Iraq war would require not just military intervention, but also a political solution

Right-wing lunatic and Republican hero Jerome Corsi, on Catholics and the Pope:

CORSI: Maybe while he's there he can tell the UN what he's going to do about the sexual crimes committed by "priests" in his "Church" during his tenure. Or, maybe that's the connection -- boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press. (03/03/2003)

CORSI: So this is what the last days of the Catholic Church are going to look like. Buggering boys undermines the moral base and the laywers rip the gold off the Vatican altars. We may get one more Pope, when this senile one dies, but that's probably about it. (12/16/2002)

On Islam and Arabs

CORSI: Let's see exactly why it isn't the case that Islam is a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion? Where's the proof to the contrary? (04/24/2004)

CORSI: Islam is like a virus -- it affects the mind -- maybe even better as an analogy -- it is a cancer that destroys the body it infects... No doctor would hesitate to eliminate cancer cells from the body. (11/26/02)

CORSI: Islam is a peaceful religion as long as the women are beaten, the boys buggered, and the infidels killed. (11/22/2002)

CORSI: How's this as an analogy -- the Koran is simply the "software" for producing deviant cancer cell political behavior and violence in human beings. (02/15/2002)

CORSI: Think the liberal press will ever let out that these 2 were lovers -- typical Islamic boy-buggering -- older man, younger man -- black Muslims? I doubt it. Not a pretty picture, but one certain to be hidden by PC media. (11/08/2002)

CORSI: Isn't the Democratic Party the official SODOMIZER PROTECTION ASSOCIATION of AMERICA -- oh, I forgot, it was just an accident that Clintoon's first act in office was to promote "gays in the military." RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together. (11/18/2001)

This is all mainstream Republicanism. Standard fare from the Party of Hate, the party of bigots. The Party of Althouse. So there's nothing unusual about what Corsi is peddling. It's fits perfectly with the conservative movement.

John Lynch said..."Books preach to the choir. Who is going to go spend $30 on a book they disagree with?"

*Raises hand.* I bought Jeff Rosen's and Mark tushnet's books about the court, knowing I was going to think it was totally wrong. I was given Jeff Toobin's book, and I strongly encourage publishers to do that more often, while urging a better quality of book.

Peaceful said..."Mccain voted *AGAINST* a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr."

Two and a half decades ago. And has since said he was wrong and apologized.

"Obama graduated from Harvard with honors near the *TOP* of his class"

Obama graduated from Harvard with honors *NEAR* the top of his class. You think that those who finished ahead of him are qualified to be President too?

"Obama was the *FIRST* black president of the Harvard Law Review"

So what? Is that somehow particularly admirable?

"Obama *TAUGHT* constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years"

So what? You think that because he taught it he has some special respect for the Constitution? Many lawprofs have no such thing - want to change it and write articles that are squarely athwart it. Moreover, as I understand it, Obama didn't teach conlaw, he taught a very narrowly-focussed seminar on rights conlaw - the exceptions, not the rule! So why would that mean he has any particular understanding of the Constitution more generally?

"Obama *WARNED* that the Iraq war would require not just military intervention, but also a political solution"

Obama wouldn't have gone there in the first place, so he was wrong from the beginning.

I understand and share the desire to have a President who can speak in complete sentences, but it seems as though Obama supporters are letting that desire overwhelm any kind of critical thinking skills.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY - PNAC------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

"We will find there are still massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq"2003 - Remarks by John McCain prior to the U.S. invasion of IraqSource - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Remarks_by_John_McCain_prior_to_the_U.S._invasion_of_Iraq

Which Senators voted to authorize the Iraq war?http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&vote=00237&session=2

The Bush Administration leaked the identity of Plame, a former CIA officer, as retailiation in 2003 after her husband, Joseph Wilson, raised serious questions about the administration's claims that officials in Niger were trying to sell yellowcake uranium to Iraq

Mixalhs said..."But, Simon, you give us no reasons why we should support McCain. You see, we have to choose, and out of the two, Obama seems like the obvious choice."

I absolutely agree - and believe it or not I find it refreshing to see someone else saying so - that the issue isn't whether the candidates are good but which is better. Nevertheless, I disagree that Obama is the obvious choice. The primary reason to support McCain is the Supreme Court: Justice Stevens' departure during the next President's term is highly likely, and if McCain is the President, we'll finally claw our way back to a legalist majority. Even liberals should welcome such a result, not least because it will render Anthony Kennedy irrelevant, a service of incalculable value. Lower down the totem pole, but still very important, is that whatever McCain may or may not do, he certainly won't do most of the things that Obama has promised to do, things that I think will be ruinous to this country. Precisely because you're right about it being a two horse race, I don't think it's valid to say that one must put forward a case that McCain has positive policy propositions that are ideal; I don't claim McCain is a perfect candidate, just that he is far and away a better pick than that other guy.

"Also, Simon, why do you have a weird picture of Scalia and the word 'sensei' next to it. Talk about a Cult of Personality."

It's just a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor, although kudos on reading the kana. :) Still, describing it as being a cult of personality seems very far from the mark. One wouldn't say that Kelly Clarkson has a "cult of personality" simply because she has fans.

Peaceful - you're welcome. By the way, you should know that there's nothing more persuasive -- nothing that more effectively shows you to be a thoughtful person worthy of being listened to -- than verbatim copy-and-paste jobs. Bravo.

"Senator McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95 percent of the time."

The methodology of the study on which your claim rests could use some scrutiny. The study "only track[s] votes when the President has an explicit, stated opinion on a bill." So we need to see the source data, particularly how many votes are taken into account in compositing that 95% figure. If McCain voted Bush's way [i]once[/i], that would give him a 100% rating if every other vote he placed was on bills excluded from the survey by its matching criteria of needing an "explicit, stated [Bush] opinion." Another question that jumps to my mind: what do we do with procedural votes? John Kerry got hung by that, which I always thought was a little unfair. Did McCain vote for Bush, for purposes of the study, if he voted against cloture on a bill that Bush opposes? Against him? Neither?

Instead of focusing on the book, you’re shooting at the critics, so to speak which apparently was your only option given that you haven’t read Corsi’s book. (You’re writing a review of a review of a book you haven’t read.) That aside, here’s a simple analogy. You walk outside. A house across the street is on fire. Firefighters show up to put it out, walk away grumbling about how that was awful and dangerous and they wished it hadn’t happened since even though they put it out some damage was done. Do you lecture the firefighters for being pissed about a fire? Yes it’s their job but there are many, many legitimate fires (to extend the analogy) that deserve attention and having to devote energy to responding to such garbage should make journalists (and the rest of us) angry.

Because the book reviewers did not write a 10,000 word article you equate that with meaning Corsi’s claims are correct. Where’s your sense of logic? Corsi’s repeated a bunch of old, debunked crap. How many times are all of us required to dutifully respond to morons?

You say you don’t recommend it --- but you are willing to profit off it. By providing a link and hoping to make a little money off of garbage (enjoy that twenty bucks in calculated click-through rates) you willingly embrace and wish to profit from intellectual stupidity. You just became a Swift Boater, even though you’ve admittedly not read the book or dug into any of the supposed facts or looked into anything about Corsi. (And to the poster impressed by the fact that he has a PhD: that’s really not such an accomplishment if one has the privilege and energy to jump through the hoops. Funny how the right loves to demonize academics unless one of their own has an advanced degree.)

Just noted the two photos of Obama “smoking.” Here’s two reasons why they haven’t been published. (1) Who cares? (2) They aren’t associated with a news event (3) They are obvious Photoshop jobs (unless he’s smoking “smokeless” cigs), quite the metaphor for this entire post and discussion. Come on, people, focus.

Can you believe I actually thought that blogs were places that people were allowed to leave comments?

Silly me.

--

Blake, don't you really mean if someone posts something that you don't like or agree with then it is *SPAM*.

Blake, don't you really mean if someone posts something that you don't like or agree with then it is *RUDE*.

--

You see, Blake, in fact there are American soldiers fighting and dying, at this very moment, so that you and I both can have a chance to voice our opinions in a civilized debate. I didn't realize this was a high school blog with clicks and such.

Unsolicited bulk email (UBE) or unsolicited commercial email (UCE), is the practice of sending unwanted e-mail messages, frequently with *commercial* content, in large quantities to an indiscriminate set of recipients.

--

If you are still not satisfied with my post, well then, excuse me for not being part of your little click.

I'm sorry I haven't called anyone names, or even told them they should kill themselves (wink) right Palladian.

--

That's the beauty of living in America. People defend our rights as citizens so that we can practice then in principle.

I don't know what you posted; It took me long enough to scroll past it. I don't let strangers dictate my reading material. A lot of people here have earned my respect and I will chase down their links--but if you'll notice, the regulars don't do what you did.

Only missionaries who come in to civilize the natives.

Also, only a noob invokes the First Amendment. It does not apply here. Ultimately, Althouse can delete you if she feels like it. (Which she probably won't. That doesn't make it any less rude.)

"Fact-checking the books can require extensive labor and time from independent journalists, whose work often trails behind the media echo chamber."

"Imagine! A book is able to get out in front of the usually nimble "delivery system" of the newspaper. And isn't it annoying that book authors get into the media and say things that require fact-checking? Who are these people? Who let them in? How dare they impose extensive labor on journalists!"

Do you really teach law, or are you normally that obtuse? You totally missed the point of that sentence.

The phrase in question directly relates to smears being released into the wild as true before they can be verified. People say untruths in a book, they get repeated, they become fact for low-information consumers. No amount of refutation will be able to reach them.